Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3145
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
This study compared three Brainlab thermoplastic masks-Cranial 4pi basic, stereotactic (Close Mask V2), and open-face-to see how well they limited head movement during Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS). Using a head phantom, we tested rotational movements (pitch, yaw, and roll) and measured displacements with the ExacTrac system. The open-face mask had the smallest mean displacements (pitch: 0.14 ± 0.03°, yaw: 0.11 ± 0.02°, roll: 0.16 ± 0.03°) and performed slightly better than the stereotactic mask in pitch (0.20 ± 0.04°, p = 0.0173). The stereotactic mask performed similarly in yaw (0.09 ± 0.02°) and roll (0.16 ± 0.04°). The basic mask showed much more movement (pitch: 0.44 ± 0.13°, yaw: 0.28 ± 0.07°, roll: 0.26 ± 0.07°), making it less suitable for SRS. These results apply to the solid two-piece masks tested here and show that both the open-face and stereotactic masks provide reliable immobilization for accurate SRS treatments.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70058 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!
© LitMetric 2025. All rights reserved.